[wg-c] Privacy gTLD

[Javier SOLA <javier@aui.es>]

Privacy TLDs are an interesting idea, but they do have a few setbacks from
a business point of view.

Seen from an ISP side, what might happen is that if the customer does not
assume responsibility for the contents of the website (cannot be
identified), then the ISP might be considered responsible for the contents,
in the same way in which -in a collective book- what is written is
responsibility of each author, but if there is no author for a given part
of the book, then the editor assumes the responsibility.

I would also see difficult identification of a web owner as a barrier to
e-commerce. People would have be careful to know who they trade with, if
that company/person can be easily found or not. Identification for
trade-mark violations through the internet (not domain related) would also
have to be looked at carefully.

Javier

At 21:56 27/07/99 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
>Kent, I found your logic and discussion very helpful. Particularly noting
>that the "policy" is probably a place to start when considering a new gTLD.
>On the idea of a "privacy" tld, I guess I'd also like to hear from ISPs
>around the world, who essentially provide that kind of privacy to their
>subscribers, and whose business models might be sharply impacted by
>"personal" gTLD space.. It's just a consideration which I would throw out,
>which I've discussed with some small ISPs.  From the business perspective, I
>just stuggle with how we find the necessary 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com]
>Sent: Sunday, July 25, 1999 2:28 PM
>To: wg-c@dnso.org
>Subject: Re: [wg-c] Who should vote for new gTLDs
>
>
>On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 10:33:14AM -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>> 
>> Voting is an interesting idea... I've been following the discussion, and
>> want to raise a question.  How will the DNSO take into account and consult
>> with the other two SO's.  
>
>I think, and as you indeed hint below, the consultation must be 
>wider than that.
>
>> Voting will bring in those who are involved, but not necessarily those who
>> are affected, or knowledgeable... Maybe instead of voting (and this may be
>> what you mean), a poll which can advise those who are representing various
>> constituencies could be a first step...and then they could consult about
>the
>> pros and cons, impact on various other stakeholders, etc.
>
>I have been reviewing Eric Brunner and Michael Froomkin's suggestions
>for new TLDs.  Neither is a gTLD, but the mere existence of such
>proposals, I believe, provides important guidance for our work here:
>there are other TLDs than gTLDs that must be considered for inclusion
>in the root zone, but there is only one root zone, and there is only
>one name space in it.  Every use of a name preempts some other use of
>the name.  Every gTLD name preempts the name of a potential
>"chartered" TLD. 
>
>Some have suggested that the DNSO should set standards for
>"accrediting registries" and then let the accredited registries pick
>their TLD names (restricted by some rules).  I believe that approach
>is exactly backward.  We should first have a process for the
>selection of *names* in the TLD space (not just the gTLD space), and
>then, perhaps, let accredited registries bid on the names. 
>
>In particular, every TLD needs to be up for an extensive public
>comment period, and there needs to be a process for evaluating those
>comments.  It can't just be a vote of the GA, or the SOs.
>
>The public comment period has to address not only the name, but the
>intended use.  A "privacy-enhanced" TLD has policy implications, as
>Prof Froomkin indicates, and those policy implications are, in that
>case, more important than the name.  (In contrast, for a ".att" TLD,
>the policy implications derive from the specific name, and the 
>controversy surrounding the choice of name would dwarf any policy 
>considerations, I would imagine. :-))
>
>That is, the name and the intended use for a TLD must be considered
>together.  The choice of registry is a secondary concern that may or 
>may not be important.  [A while back a proposal was floated for a 
>".eu" TLD as a pan-european pseudo ccTLD.  I don't remember the 
>details, but presuming that it was proposed by by the European 
>Commission, the choice of registry might well be constrained by the 
>policy for the TLD.)
>
>The mechanism I have proposed for incorporating this public comment
>is the Working Group process.  It has been suggested that this would
>slow down the addition of new TLDs -- many see that as a significant
>advantage, in fact.  But it is important to realize that a WG could
>propose a set of TLDs.  For example, someone might propose a set of
>numeric TLDS, ".000" to ".999", to be managed as gTLDs.  There are a
>number of things to consider about such a proposal -- are there
>technical implications to numeric TLDs? should they all be run by one
>registry?  Is it a good idea to add 1000 TLDs in a single block?  
>What if some enterprising entrepreneur wants ".00000" to ".99999"?
>
>So to return to Javier's original question -- I don't think TLDs
>should be approved just by a vote.  *Every* TLD has a policy
>associated with it, explicit or implicit, and that policy cannot, in
>general, be disassociated from the name.  That polic/name combination
>is precisely the first thing that must be approved, before the 
>registry even enters into the picture.
>
>-- 
>Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
>kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>